The continuation bit is necessary for headers at a minimum, as we do have headers which are > 65k, and something indicating either end-of-semantic-header-block is necessary to support that. I don't understand why it makes sense to limit header frames by the window size. what if the window size is zero? What if it is 1 byte. I don't see any real benefits for limiting control frames to anything having to do with the window size as compared to sending a SETTING and having the default before there and having it completely decoupled from window size, and I do see a number of complications and ewws :/ -=R On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Hasan Khalil <hkhalil@google.com> wrote: > While I love the idea of limiting frames to 65535B, I hate the idea of a > continuation bit. > > -Hasan > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 10 May 2013 10:40, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: >> > [...] are we going to move forward with the frame >> > continuation bit? >> >> I think that this was implicit in our decision to limit frames to >> 65535 bytes (or less). >> > >
Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 19:56:09 UTC